They call us insane because we want the truth. They call us insane because they say we want too much. They say we are crazy because we do not settle for less. They say “take what you can get” as if we will be “getting” something.
If you ever defended the two state solution as a Palestinian, know that you are throwing away land. Know that land in the 48 borders was Palestine, and the only reason it is not today, is because of racism and greed.
For all the non Palestinian “activists” who believe the one state solution will not work, please, do not advise the Palestinians to leave what is lawfully theirs. If you want me to state why I think it is lawful and very legitimate, (other than the fact that it was taken forcefully, other than the fact that there are more than 4 million refugees waiting to go back, other than the fact that the one state solution is already in place along with a system of apartheid) the UN can explain it. The UN declaration of Human Rights article 13 states (I know this by heart)
“Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state, Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country.” The refugees have a right to return, no debate needed about that.
To Chomsky’s followers: I do not see Noam Chomsky as a leader on these issues, but as a Zionist, who supports and accepts Israel as an international Jewish state.
In an Israeli interview, Chomsky explains his stance: “Israel should have--should have--all the rights of a state in the international system, no more and no less.”
But just the fact that Israel exists as a Jewish state is an issue. That fact cancels out the Palestinians and their rights in the international system, as Muslims and Christians. Chomsky does not mention where the Palestinians stand. .
When he does talk about the Palestinians, it is not a strong stance. He says the right of return is unfair for the refugees because it is false hope. Well people feed off of hope! The Palestinians live for this, they have hope and always possessed hope. Do you think we could have been able to stay strong for 60 years if hope was not there? So Chomsky’s argument is for killing hope (because it is “unrealistic”), and therefore, killing the movement. It is as if he and others are lecturing, imposing ideas in activists’ heads to kill off the hope. And I ask, why should Palestinians listen? Are they going to listen to the U.S., or the U.N. or the E.U. or maybe to Israel itself? No. I don’t believe that Palestinians should even listen to other Arab countries (we all know Arab nationalism and “brotherhood” died the same day as President Nasser of Egypt ). And why listen to any “activist” or “friend” who will tell you to leave what you have stolen from you?
Here is another quote from Chomsky about the nature of his advocacy:
I will keep here to advocacy in the serious sense: accompanied by some kind of feasible program of action, free from delusions about “acting on principle” without regard to “realism” -- that is, without regard for the fate of suffering people.
If you take that statement apart it suggests that the “suffering people” need to stay and suffer where they are and not have any hope, so experience their misery, without hope. The problem with this is that he does not even talk about a feasible solution for the refugee issue. The refugees need to establish themselves where they are at now.
That might be possible-- except that many do not have equal rights because of their refugee status. They do not have proper paperwork, or they are stateless, or they get kicked out of where they are, or they are below the poverty line, and all these issues are not easily fixed. I know the refugees, and the issue is complicated, but the bottom line is that Chomsky’s suggestion is not a feasible answer.
And therefore, hope is key, and this hope is not some crazy fantasy like growing wings or even winning the lottery kind of hope. No it is lawful hope, like the hope for the sun to rise every morning, rational, legitimate and righteous.
The fact is there is one state already implemented, so the Palestinians are only asking for equal rights in the land. Chomsky says that the right way to get to the “one state” is to sign the “two state” first. How is this a feasible way? In doing so the Palestinians will need to sign the “two state” and throw away all the land within the 48 borders, then find a way to regain it all? How? Are we going to flip the script and have Palestinians occupy what will be a fully legitimate Israel that the Palestinians and the international consensus agreed on?
The Palestinian movement is still in a fragile stage. There is no room for uncertainty, there is no room to question if the right of return is a good idea or not, or if the BDS movement is creating a cult (as Chomsky has also suggested). His belief on this issue is far from where the movement should be. We cannot settle for what is “realistic” because that means settling for what is most convenient to the U.S. and Israel. This issue is clear, and you are with us or against us.